On 23 Jun 2011, at 04:44, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>
>
>> If TAG thinks that it is critical to make the distinction with regard to the nature of what the URI is used for, then invent some extra 2xx code as Tim suggested. For example, 209 = Information Resource (or Content of Document). 210 for non-information resource (or non content of a document).
>
> You are thinking of this upside-down again. It isn't the class of object -- it is the relationship with the response. Do you mean: 209 = here is contents of x; 210 = here is data about x ?
>
> Do you suggest the bulk of the pages on the existing web switch to 209 instead of 200?
Btw, I imagine things happening like this:
1. lazy pragmatic developers refuse to make object/document decisions and scoff at Academics in the process making them feel good
2. They create a web of object/documents that is valuable
3. A new hypeed cool format [Ajax++] comes out and now they'd like to describe their content with their old microformat ontologies and with Ajax++ --
Problem: they can't really serve both documents at the same URL and they can't change the infrastructure that grew up around their ontology.
=> They need to keep the references to the objects to be what they are (the document ones) as those are linked, but allow the documents to be dissociated from the objects.
This is where 209 or 210 or whatever comes into play. All their old Document Objects now return 210 documents returning the format requested by the end user, but pointing to the Permalink for the document in the header somewhere.
Henry
> Tim
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/